Ganesan Vs. the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement has explained the grievances faced by the financial institutions while holding that For instance, if LIC Housing Finance Ltd., which has advanced money to the petitioner in the first writ petition and which consequently has a right over the property, is able to satisfy the Adjudicating Authority that the money advanced by them for the purchase of the property cannot be taken to be the proceeds of crime, then, the Adjudicating Authority is obliged to record a finding to that effect and to allow the provisional order of attachment to lapse. Otherwise a, financial institution will be seriously prejudiced. I do not think that the Directorate of Enforcement or the Adjudicating Authority would expect every financial institution to check up whether the contribution made by the borrowers towards their share of the sale consideration was lawfully earned or represent the proceeds of crime. Today, if the Adjudicating Authority confirms the provisional order of attachment and the property vests with the Central Government, LIC Housing Finance Ltd. will also have to undergo dialysis, due to the illegal kidney trade that the petitioner in the writ petition is alleged to have indulged in. This cannot be purport of the Act. In the present case, even though the Ld. Adjudicating Authority had all the reasons to believe that the said vehicle was hypothecated to the Appellant Bank and that the Appellant/SBI had prior charge over the subject matter/said vehicle; still the Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional attachment order of the Respondent no. 1 and thus caused huge loss to the Appellant/SBI.
23. It may be stated here that the legal issue of overriding effect of the two Acts i.e. SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the PMLA Act, 2002 has since been decided by this Tribunal. In the aforesaid common judgment, dated 14.07.2017 (supra) passed in this tribunal in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement in appeal no. FPA- PMLA-1026/KOL/2015 wherein the similar issue was involved. This Tribunal has held that SARFAESI Act, 2002 has over-riding effect over the PMLA Act, 2002 after discussing the said legal issues in details on FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 9 of 24 the basis of the latest amendment of SARFAESI Act, 2002 in which section 31 (B) has been inserted in the year 2016 and judgment of Honble Supreme Court and the latest judgment of full bench of Madras High Court. We have also discussed several other judgments in the said common judgment dated 14.7.2017. The relevant paras of our said judgment dated 14.7.2017 are reproduced below:-
40. B. RAMA RAJU V. UOI AND ORS. Reported in (2011) 164 company case 149(AP)(DB) who has dealt with the aspect of bonafide acquisition of property in para 103. The same read as under:-
103. Since proceeds of crime is defined to include the value of any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, where a person satisfies the adjudicating authority by relevant material and evidence having a probative value that his acquisition is bona fide, legitimate and for fair market value paid therefor, the adjudicating authority must carefully consider the material and evidence on record (including the Reply furnished by a noticee in response to a notice issue under Section 8(1) and the material or evidence furnished along therewith to establish his earnings, assets or means to justify the bona fides in the acquisition of the property); and if satisfied as to the bona fide acquisition of the property, relieve such property from provisional attachment by declining to pass an order of confirmation of the provisional attachment; either in respect of the whole or such part of the property provisionally attached in respect whereof bona fide acquisition by a person is established, at the stage of the section 8(2) process
41. The Supreme Court in (2010)8 Supreme Court Cases 110 (Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ) in the case of United Bank of India V/s. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. In paras no. 6, 55 & 56 has held as under:-
6. To put it differently, the DRT Act has not only brought into existence special procedural mechanism for speedy recovery of dues of banks and financial institutions, but also made provision for ensuring that defaulting borrowers are not able to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil courts for frustrating the proceedings initiated by the banks and other financial institutions.
55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 10 of 24 under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.
56. Insofar as this case is concerned, we are convinced that the High Court was not at all justified in injuncting the appellant from taking action in furtherance of notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Since the respondent has not appeared to contest the appeal, the costs are made easy. In the subsequent changes in law and amendment in the another Special act i.e. sarfaesi act, 2002 the decisions referred by Mr. Matta in the case of Solidaire (Supra) and Bhoruka Steel (Supra) does not help the case of the respondent no. 1 because the effect of overrding the PMLA looses its validity once the amendment is made which even has been interpreted subsequently by the Full-Bench of the Chennai High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner CT (Supra) and other decision in the nature of the facts in the present matter.
42. It is also a matter of fact that after passing the impugned order the borrowers have also settled the loan amount with the complainant i.e. Union of India in order to pay the remaining out-standing amount. The undertaking in this regard is recorded in Court. It is written agreement and the statement of the parties were recorded. Counsel for the borrowers has also informed us that his client also intent to pay the remaining out- standing amount to the State Bank of India in order to clear their liabilities once the attached properties are sold and even otherwise. Copy of the settlement of the borrowers and the complainant Bank of India was filed before us. As far as the schedule offence is concerned, we do not wish to make any comment. But we can only observe that in case of settlement, joint petition for quashing of FIR in the High Court u/s 482 Cr. P.C. could be filed.
43. It is not denied on behalf of department that these provisional attachment was made, the proceedings of recovery of amount were pending before the DRT for recovery against the borrowers and for sum of the properties, possession were with the bank. The mortgaged deeds are also not disputed or/and validity of the same are not challenged on behalf of ED.
44. It is settled law that generally when the civil dispute between the parties are settled before the court particularly pertaining to the recovery of out-standing amount, on joint petition, the High Court while exercising FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 11 of 24 its discretion may quash the criminal petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. at the joint request of the parties.
45. Three judge bench in narendra lal jain & ors., (supra) held that during the investigation pertaining to the culpability of the accused in the crime, the concerned bank had instituted suits for recovery of the amount claimed to be due from the respondents and the said suits were disposed of in terms of the consent decrees. On the basis of the said consent decrees an application for discharge was filed which was rejected by the trial court but eventually was allowed by the high court. The charges in the matter were framed under section 120-b/420 IPC by the learned trial judge against the private parties. As far as bank officials are concerned, charges were framed under different provisions of the prevention of corruption of act, 1988. Being dissatisfied with the said order,, the CBI had preferred an appeal by obtaining special leave and in that context the court observed that the accused respondent had been charged under section 120-b/420 IPC and the civil liability of the respondent to pay the amount had already been settled and further there was no grievance on the part of the bank. Taking note of the fact that offence under section 420 of IPC is compoundable and section 120-b is not compoundable, the court eventually opined thus:-
55. Whether innocent party whose properties i.e. movable or immovable are attached can approach the Adjudicating Authority for release of attached property. The Scheme of Prevention of Money Laundering Act clearly provides the mechanism whereby the innocent parties can approach the Adjudicating Authority for the purposes of release of properties which have been attached in terms of the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. This can be seen by reading Section 8(1) and the proviso to Section 8(2) of the Act whereby Adjudicating Authority has to rule whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice are involved in money laundering or not.
8. Adjudication.- (1) On receipt of a complaint under sub-section (5) of section 5, or applications made under sub-section (4) of section 17 or under subsection (10) of section 18, if the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person has committed an offence under section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of crime, he may serve a notice of not less than thirty days on such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under sub-section (1) of section 5, or, seized or frozen under section 17 or section 18, the FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 12 of 24 evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money-laundering and confiscated by the Central Government: Provided that where a notice under this sub-section specifies any property as being held by a person on behalf of any other person, a copy of such notice shall also be served upon such other person: Provided further that where such property is held jointly by more than one person, such notice shall be served to all persons holding such property. (2) The Adjudicating Authority shall, after- (a) considering the reply, if any, to the notice issued under subsection (1); (b) hearing the aggrieved person and the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, and (c)taking into account all relevant materials placed on record before him, by an order, record a finding whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice issued under sub- section (1) are involved in money-laundering: Provided that if the property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money-laundering, section 58 B or sub-section (2 A) of section 60 by the Adjudicating Authority (4) Where the provisional order of attach"
56. There are judicial pronouncements whereby it has been laid down that the innocent parties can approach the Adjudicating Authority for release of property by showing their bonafides in their dealings with the property. In the case of Sushil Kumar Katiyar (Appellants) Vs UOI and Ors. (Respondents) MANU/UP/0777/2016 decided on 10.05.2016 by Allahabad High Court, it has been observed by the Ld. Single Judge after noticing the judgment of Karnataka High Court that the element of knowingly or mens rea have been provided under the Act so that the aspect of implicating any innocent person can be ruled out. Relevant para 26 of judgment is reproduced below:-
26. Thus, upon consideration of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, it is clear that the amendment incorporated in the Money Laundering Act was not held unconstitutional and ultra virus, but it was FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 13 of 24 observed by the Karnataka High Court that the property of a person can be attached without there being any prosecution for the offence of Money Laundering, but so far as the prosecution of a person for the offence of money laundering is concerned, the proceedings under section 3 of the pml act can be initiated only in case the person is held guilty of receiving proceeds of crime as a result of commission of scheduled offence. The Karnataka High Court has also held that the complainant in such a case is not required to wait for the result of trial being held for the scheduled offence. A complaint can still be filed against such person, but if ultimately the person is acquitted of the charge for the scheduled offence, his prosecution under section
3 of the Act for the offence of Money-Laundering would also come to an end. It has also been kept open by the Karnataka High Court that a person against whom complaint under section 3 of the pml act has been filed and he is being prosecuted for the offence of money-laundering, he can show before the court that he is innocent and has not received any proceeds of crime. It is clear that innocent person can approach the Adjudicating Authority of any competent court to demonstrate his innocence that he has not received any proceeds of crime. The consequence of this is that while considering whether all or any of the properties provided under notice issued u/S 8(1) are involved in money laundering, the Adjudicating Authority can take into consideration the plea of innocence raised by any person and also the fact as to whether the property which has been attached has any nexus whatsoever with that of money laundering or not if the person before the Tribunal/ Adjudicating Authority is able to demonstrate that he neither directly nor indirectly has attempted to indulge nor with knowledge or ever assisted any process or activity in connection with proceeds or crime and the question of his involvement does not arise as he is third party, then the Tribunal/ Adjudicating Authority can consider the said plea depending upon whether there exist bona fide in the said plea or not and proceed to adjudicate the plea of innocence of the said party.
57. This is due to the reason that Section 8 allows the Adjudicating Authority to only retain the properties which are involved in money laundering which means as to whether properties attached are involved in money laundering or not is a pre-condition prior to confirming or attachment by Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, at that time, if the plea is raised that the party whose property is attached is innocent or is without knowledge of any such transaction with respect to money laundering, then the Tribunal can consider the said plea and proceed to release the said property out of the properties by holding that the said property is not involved in money laundering. FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 14 of 24
58. For the purposes of determining whether the property is involved in money laundering, the Court may consider the ingredients of Section 3 which define offence of money laundering. The aspect of knowledge or involvement has been discussed by Ld. Single Judge of Gujarat High Court in the case of Jafar Mohammed Hasanfatta and Ors (Appellants) Vs Deputy Director and Ors. (Respondents) MANU/GJ/0219/2017 wherein Ld Single Judge has observed as under:-
37. A holistic reading of this definition of 'proceeds of crime' and the penal provision under section 3 of pmla, which uses conjunctive 'and', makes it luminous that any persons concerned in any process or activity connected with such "proceeds of crime" relating to a "scheduled offence" including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use can be guilty of money laundering, only if both of the two prerequisites are satisfied i.e.-
(i) Firstly, if he- (a) directly or indirectly 'attempts' to indulge, (b) knowingly either assists or is a party, or (c) is actually involved in such activity; and
(ii) Secondly, if he also projects or claims it as untainted property;"
38. The first of the two pre-requisite to attract section 3 of pmla shall thus satisfy any of the following necessary ingredients- A. RE: DIRECT OR INDIRECT ATTEMPT: In State of Maharashtra v. Mohd.Yakub, MANU/SC/0239/1980 : (1980) 3 SCC 57, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that-
13. Well then, what is an attempt? ...In sum, a person commits the offence of "attempt to commit a particular offence" when (i) he intends to commit that particular offence and (ii) he, having made preparations and with the intention to commit the offence, does an act towards its commission; such an act need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of that offence but must be an act during the course of committing that offence." Thus, an attempt to indulge would necessarily require not only a positive "intention" to commit the offence, but also preparation for the same coupled with doing of an act towards commission of such offence with such intention to commit the offence. FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 15 of 24 Respondent failed to produce any material or circumstantial evidence whatsoever, oral or documentary, to show any such 'intention' and 'attempt' on the part of any of the petitioners. B. RE: KNOWINGLY ASSISTS OR KNOWINGLY IS A PARTY: In Joti Parshad v. State Of Haryana., MANU/SC/0161/1993 : 1993 Supp (2) SCC 497 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows-
5. Under the Indian penal law, guilt in respect of almost all the offences is fastened either on the ground of "intention" or "knowledge" or "reason to believe". We are now concerned with the expressions knowledge and "reason to believe". Knowledge is an awareness on the part of the person concerned indicating his state of mind. Reason to believe is another facet of the state of mind. "Reason to believe" is not the same thing as suspicion or doubt and mere seeing also cannot be equated to believing. Reason to believe is a higher level of state of mind. Likewise knowledge will be slightly on a higher plane than reason to believe. A person can be supposed to know where there is a direct appeal to his senses and a person is presumed to have a reason to believe if he has sufficient cause to believe the same. The same test therefore applies in the instant case where there is absolutely no material or circumstantial evidence whatsoever, oral or documentary, to show that any of the petitioners, 'Knowingly', assisted or was a party to, any offence. C. Actually involved: Actually involved would mean actually involved into any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and thus scheduled offence, including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use. There is absolutely no material or circumstantial evidence whatsoever, oral or documentary, to substantiate any such allegation qua the petitioners, D. Neither any of the petitioners is arraigned as accused in the 'Scheduled Offences' punishable under Indian Penal Code for direct or indirect involvement, abetment, conspiracy or common intention, nor is any such case made out even on prima facie basis against any of them."
39. The second of the two pre-requisite to attract section 3 of pmla would be satisfied only if the person also projects or claims proceeds of crime as FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 16 of 24 untainted property. For making such claim or to project 'proceeds of crime' as untainted, the knowledge of tainted nature i.e. the property being 'proceeds of crime' derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, would be utmost necessary, which however is lacking in the instant case."
59. These are four ingredients which are determinative factors on the basis of which it can be said that whether any person or any property is involved in money laundering or not. If there is no direct / indirect involvement of any person or property with the proceeds of the crime nor there is any aspect of knowledge in any person with respect to involvement or assistance nor the said person is party to the said transaction, then it cannot be said that the said person is connected with any activity or process with the proceeds of the crime. The same principle should be applied while judging the involvement of any property of any person in money laundering. This is due to the reason that if the property has no direct involvement in the proceeds of the crime and has passed on hands to the number of purchasers which includes the bona fide purchaser without notice, the said purchaser who is not having any knowledge about the involvement of the said property with the proceeds of the crime nor being the participant in the said transaction ever, cannot be penalized for no fault of his. Therefore, it cannot be the Scheme of the Act whereby bona fide person without having any direct/ indirect involvement in the proceeds of the crime or its dealings can be made to suffer by mere attachment of the property at the initial stage and later on its confirmation on the basis of mere suspicion when the element of mens rea or knowledge is missing.
60. Similar principle has been laid down by Chennai High Court in the case of C. Chellamuthu (Appellants) Vs The Deputy Director, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Directorate of Enforcement (Respondent) MANU/TN/4087/2015 decided on 14.10.2015, relevant portion of which are reproduced below:-
20. The said sections read as follows:--
23. Presumption in inter-connected transactions Where money-laundering involves two or more inter- connected transactions and one or more such transactions is or are proved to be involved in money-laundering, then for the purposes of adjudication or confiscation (under section 8 or for the trial of the money-laundering offence, it shall unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court), be presumed that the remaining transactions form part of such inter-connected transaction. FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 17 of 24
24. Burden of proof In any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under this Act, (a) in the case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under Section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering; and (b) in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering.
21. In the present case, one G. Srinivasan is accused of having played fraud and obtained a loan of Rs. 15,00,00,000/- by producing bogus and fabricated documents. From and out of the said amount, the property in question was purchased by him in the names of his Benamies. One Ayyappan was appointed as their Power Agent. One Gunaseelan purchased the property through the Power Agent Ayyappan. The said Gunaseelan was examined and his statement was recorded Under Section 50 of the Act. He had stated that he purchased the property for cultivation. He developed the property but geologist gave opinion that property will not yield proper income. In the circumstances, he sold the property to appellants. The respondent has not produced any document or material to disprove the statement of Gunaseelan. There is nothing on record to show that the transaction in favour of the said Gunaseelan, is not genuine. It is not the case of respondent that the said Gunaseelan is a Benami or employee of G. Srinivasan and that Gunaseelan did not pay any amount as sale consideration or the sale consideration paid by Gunaseelan was not legitimate money. There is no material to show nexus and link of Gunaseelan with G. Srinivasan and his Benamies. In the absence of any verification or investigation by respondent with regard to genuineness or otherwise of the purchase by Gunaseelan; whether he was connected with G. Srinivasan or the sale consideration is legitimate or not the property in the hands of Gunaseelan cannot be termed as proceeds of crime.
22. Further, the appellants have given statements under Section 50 of the Act. They have categorically stated that they possess agricultural lands, cultivate GloriosaSuperba seeds and sell the same and derive considerable income. They have named the persons to whom they have sold the GloriosaSuperba seeds and produced Bank statements. Some of the Appellants have stated that they sold their lands and borrowed monies to FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 18 of 24 purchase the property in question. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent had verified these statements. Especially, the respondent has not verified the Bank statement produced by the Appellants to ascertain the genuineness of the same and whether the money deposited came from genuine purchasers or from the persons involved in fraud and Money Laundering. The respondent does not allege that Appellants are Benamies of G. Srinivasan or no sale consideration passed to the vendor.
23. Considering the materials on record and judgments reported in MANU/MH/1011/2010: 2010 (5)Bom CR 625 [supra] and : [2011] 164 Comp Cas 146(AP) [supra], I hold that appellants have rebutted the presumption that the property in question is proceeds of crime. The respondent failed to prove any nexus or link of Appellants with G. Srinivasanand his benamies. Once a person proves that his purchase is genuine and the property in his hand is untainted property, the only course open to the respondent is to attach sale proceeds in the hands of vendor of the appellants and not the property in the hands of genuine legitimate bona fide purchaser without knowledge.
24. Before the Adjudicating Authority it was admitted by complainant that appellants had no knowledge that properties in the hands of their vendor was proceeds of crime. It was also not disputed by complainant that the appellants did not have financial capacity to buy properties. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 24 of order of Adjudicating Authority is extracted herein for better appreciation.
21. The CBIBS & FC (BLR) has filed a charge sheet in the court of Spl. Judge for CBI cases Coimbatore, against Sh. Arivarasu, Sh. R. Manoharan, Sh. R. Selvakumar, Sh. G. Srinivasan, Sh. K. Martha Muthu, Sh. V. InduNesan, Sh. K. Vignesh, Sh. A. Sainthil Kumar, Sh. M. Ram Krishnan, for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with 420, 467, 471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988. The offences punishable under section 120-B, 420, 471 are schedule offence under Section 2(1)(y) of the PMLA and therefore on of the condition for issuing provisional attachment order is satisfied. The other important point to be determined is whether the properties attached vide Provisional attachment order are involved in money- laundering. The only defense or explanation raised by Defendants, particularly Def No. 2 to 8 is that the landed properties attached by the complainant are not proceeds of crime. These properties were purchased by these defendants FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 19 of 24 without having any knowledge, whatsoever, that these properties were derived or obtained through criminal activities relating to schedule offence. It has been demonstrated by them that they verified the title deeds relating to the properties and after due verification of every details entered into the sale transactions as such these are bona fide deals entered by them against proper sale consideration and the money paid to the seller is also well explained.
22. Against the above arguments vehemently raised by the defendants, the complainant without disputing that the deals are bona fide heavily relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court, dated 05.08.2010 in Mr. Radha Mohan Lakhotia Vs. Deputy Director, PMLA, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai in first appeal No. 527/2010. In this case it held by the Bombay High Court that the property bought without the knowledge that the same is tainted could be subjected to Provisional Attachment Order.
23. In the instant case the only point to be decided is whether the properties bought by any person against clean money and without any knowledge that properties have been acquired directly or indirectly through scheduled offence could be subject matter of provisional attachment order.
24. It is an admitted position that the Defendants (D-2 to D-8) had no knowledge that the properties in the hands of the vendor was proceeds of crime. They have also verified the papers relating to these properties before the deal. No point has been raised with regard to the financial capability of these Defendants to buy these properties. However, the Bombay High Court decision in Radha Mohan Lakhotia has been pressed into service to make out a plea that the properties could be attached in such circumstances under the PMLA." Provisional attachment was sought to be continued only based on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Radha Mohan Lakhotia's case.
25. A reading of paragraphs 21 to 24 clearly reveals that both the Adjudicating Authority as well as Appellate Authority failed to properly appreciate the facts and findings in Radha Mohan lakhotia's case. In that case, the Department had placed substantial and acceptable facts to prove that the property in the hands of third party was proceeds of crime. It is pertinent to note that in Mr. Radha Mohan Lokatia's case, Department had proved the nexus and link between the person possessing the property and person accused of having committed an offence. All FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 20 of 24 the persons involved in that case were close relatives.
26. In the present case, the respondent failed to prove that the appellants did not have sufficient financial capacity to buy the property or that the money paid by them as sale consideration was not legitimate money derived by agricultural activities. No material was produced to show that the appellants are close relatives of person, who involved in criminal activities and the person, who sent monies to purchase the property did not possess financial capacity to provide such huge amounts and that they are not genuine purchasers of agricultural products of appellants. The respondent has not made any such investigation and has not produced any such material. Further, the Appellate Authority in fact considered the additional documents produced before it, but rejected the same on the ground that Appellants have not given any valid reasons for not filing the same before the Adjudicating Authority. Having considered the Additional documents, the appellate authority failed to give any finding on merits after verifying with the concerned Bank.
52. The appellant bank is the rightful claimants of the said properties which are already in the possession of the appellant bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Attorney General of India and Ors. (AIR 1994 SC 2179) while dealing with the matter under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act has defined the illegally acquired properties and held that such properties are earned and acquired in ways illegal and corrupt, at the cost of the people and the state, hence these properties must justly go back where they belong, the state. In the present case as the money belongs to the Appellant bank it is public money. The appellant bank has the right to property under the Constitution of India. The property of the appellant bank cannot be attached or confiscated if there is no illegality in the title of the appellant and there is no charge of money laundering against the appellant. The mortgage of property is the transfer under the transfer of property act.
53. The objective of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2005 has a greater relation to crimes connected with reference to Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, drug crimes and other connected activities. None of the provisions are applicable in the facts of the present case. As far as the borrowers are concerned, we are not expressing any opinion with regard to matters pending before the Special Court in relation to schedule offences and the complaint under this Act. These matters are to be considered as per law. FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 21 of 24
56. That the definition of proceeds of crime as per section 2(u) of the pml act comprises of the property which is derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity. In the present case, all the properties have been purchased by the Respondents and have been mortgaged with the Appellant Bank much prior to the date of alleged offence which shows that no proceeds of crime are involved in the obtention of these properties and hence the same cannot be attached by the ED because the same would result in hampering the interest of the Appellant Bank.
58. Thus, in the present case, even though the Ld. Adjudicating Authority had all the reasons to believe that the abovementioned were mortgaged to the Appellant Bank and that the Appellant/SBI had prior charge over the subject matter/five properties; still the Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional attachment order of the Respondent No. 1 and thus causing huge loss to the Appellant/SBI.
59. The Adjudicating Authority did not understand that the alleged illegal money received by the Respondents from the Union Bank of India cannot overshadow the huge amount of credit facilities which were taken by the Respondents from the appellant bank in lieu of the properties kept as security with the Appellant Bank. Thus, making the Appellant Bank the rightful owner of the said properties which are already in the possession of the Appellant Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The origin of the funds is not illegal or unlawful in any manner. The funds were only deposited in the accounts with the Appellant Bank against the drawings already availed or availed subsequently. The meaning of money laundering as mentioned in the objects of the Act will have to be read as part of the statute because as per Supreme Court of India in Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR1997SC3011 lays down at para 40 that the International Conventions and Norms are to be read into them in the absence of enacted Domestic Law occupying the field when there is no inconsistency between them.
61. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed to considered that the ED has attached all the properties without examining the case of the banks. The evidence on record suggested that all the properties were acquired by the accused much-much before the alleged date of crime. No money disbursed by the Union Bank of India from its Loan Account, has been invested in acquiring his property. Furthermore, the Appellants Banks had mortgaged charge over the property prior to the date of the crime. The Bank has already filed the Suit for recovery and has also had taken the action under SARFAESI Act. The Ld. FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 22 of 24 Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate that depriving the Appellant Bank from its funds/property, without any allegations or involvement of the Bank in the alleged fraud would be unjustified.
62. The properties attached cannot be attached under section 5 of the pml act because the properties are not purchased from the alleged proceeds of crime. As per the provisions of Section 5(1) (c) the primary requirement for the attachment is that the proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner. In this case it is clear by the order of the Adjudicating Authority that the funds were transferred for the satisfaction of the bigger credit facilities taken by the respondents from the appellant bank which they could not pay due to the losses suffered by the companies. The said properties are already in the possession of the appellant bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Attorney-General of India and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 2179 while dealing with the matter under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act has defined the illegally acquired properties and has held that the illegally acquired properties are earned and acquired in ways illegal and corrupt, at the cost of the people and the state, the state is deprived of legitimate revenue to that extent hence these properties must justly go back where they belong, the state. In the present case as the money belongs to the Appellant Bank it is liable to be recovered by the Appellants Banks.
63. The property of the Appellant Bank cannot be attached or confiscated when there is no illegality or unlawfulness in the title of the Appellant and there is no charge of money laundering against the Appellant. The mortgage of property is the transfer under the transfer of property act as there is no dispute as regards the origin of funds or the title of the properties. As far as the bank is concerned, the bank had to recover its outstanding dues by taking over the possession of the mortgaged properties in case the Respondents are not able to pay back the credit facilities availed by the Respondents and by way of the SARFAESI provisions these properties are being taken in possession by the appellant bank so that recovery can be made from the accounts which have become NPA.
64. The respondent has no lien over the said properties as the Appellants banks are now the Legal transferee of said properties. Even in the criminal jurisprudence the stolen property when it is in the hands of unauthorized person that person cannot claim title to the property. The said recipient cannot retain the property over which he has no legal title and the property should be returned to the lawful owners because the both banks are victims and even after trial, they are to receive-back FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 23 of 24 the said properties being victim party in normal types of cases u/s 8(8) of the Act. However in the present cases, the banks are innocent parties. They are not involved in any criminal proceedings. If they are asked to await till the trial is over, the systems in these types of cases, the economy would collapse. In the case, of Union Bank of India, no sanction against the employee was granted who is also not involved in any criminal proceedings.
65. From the entire gamut of the matter we are of the view that there is no nexus whatsoever between the alleged crime and the two bank who are mortgagee of all the properties which were purchased before sanctioning the loan. Thus no case of money-laundering is made out against banks who have sanctioned the amount which is untainted and pure money. They have priority to the secured creditors to recover the loan amount/debts by sale of assets over which security interest is created, which remains unpaid. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has not appreciated the facts and law involved in these matters and the primary objective of section 8 of pmla is that the Adjudicating Authority to take a prima facie view on available material and facts produced. All the contentions raised by Mr. Matta has no substance. The provisional attachment in the present matter is bad and against the law. In the circumstances available in the present case, the allegation of money laundering prima facie found to be unsustainable for the purpose of attachment under the PMLA, 2002.
66. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances in the present case and for reasons referred above, we set aside the Impugned Order dated 02.07.2015 and the provisional attachment order dated 04.02.2015. All the eight properties are released from attachment forthwith.
24. Admittedly, neither the bank is the accused in any criminal proceedings nor there is any allegations against them that they are involved in the commission of alleged crime or generating proceeds of crime. The amount of loan sanctioned are public money and they are entitled to get back their money by selling the mortgaged property as a first charge.
25. The provisions of the amended sarfaesi act prevail over the provision of the pml act because the amended sarfaesi act is the subsequent FPA-PMLA-1051/LKW/2015 Page 24 of 24 legislation to the PML Act as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Solidaire India Ltd. Vs. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 3 SCC.
26. Thus, the ED has no authority over the said vehicle as the Appellant is now the legal transferee of said vehicle. Even in the criminal jurisprudence, if the stolen property is in the hands of unauthorized person then that person cannot claim title to the property. The said recipient cannot retain the property over which he has no legal title and the property should be returned to the lawful owners.
27. In view of above observations, the impugned order dated 29.08.2014 is set aside. The provisional attachment order dated 31.03.2014 also set aside. The bank is permitted to sell the said vehicle to recover part of its outstanding against dues of Rs. 12.45 Lacs. As far as the remaining balance amount is concerned the bank is entitled to recover the remaining amount by taking the appropriate action as per law.
28. The appeal and pending applications are disposed of accordingly.
29. No costs. (Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman (Anand Kishore) Member New Delhi, 13th September, 2017.